- •Using the electronic version
- •Bookmarks
- •Moving around the text
- •Finding a word or phrase in the text
- •Using the hyperlinks in the text
- •Copying the text
- •Printing the text
- •CONTENTS
- •PREFATORY NOTE
- •NOTES FOR THE USER
- •SYNOPSIS
- •1 The Common European Framework in its political and educational context
- •1.2 The aims and objectives of Council of Europe language policy
- •1.4 Why is CEF needed?
- •1.5 For what uses is CEF intended?
- •1.6 What criteria must CEF meet?
- •2 Approach adopted
- •2.1.1 The general competences of an individual
- •2.1.2 Communicative language competence
- •2.1.3 Language activities
- •2.1.4 Domains
- •2.1.5 Tasks, strategies and texts
- •2.3 Language learning and teaching
- •2.4 Language assessment
- •3 Common Reference Levels
- •3.1 Criteria for descriptors for Common Reference Levels
- •3.2 The Common Reference Levels
- •3.3 Presentation of Common Reference Levels
- •3.4 Illustrative descriptors
- •Communicative activities
- •Strategies
- •3.5 Flexibility in a branching approach
- •3.6 Content coherence in Common Reference Levels
- •3.7 How to read the scales of illustrative descriptors
- •4 Language use and the language user/learner
- •4.1 The context of language use
- •4.1.1 Domains
- •4.1.2 Situations
- •4.1.3 Conditions and constraints
- •4.1.4 The user/learner’s mental context
- •4.2 Communication themes
- •4.3 Communicative tasks and purposes
- •4.3.4 Ludic uses of language
- •4.3.5 Aesthetic uses of language
- •4.4 Communicative language activities and strategies
- •4.4.1 Productive activities and strategies
- •4.4.2 Receptive activities and strategies
- •4.4.4 Mediating activities and strategies
- •4.4.5 Non-verbal communication
- •4.5 Communicative language processes
- •4.5.1 Planning
- •4.5.2 Execution
- •4.5.3 Monitoring
- •4.6 Texts
- •4.6.1 Texts and media
- •4.6.2 Media include:
- •4.6.3 Text-types include:
- •4.6.4 Texts and activities
- •5 The user/learner’s competences
- •5.1 General competences
- •5.1.1 Declarative knowledge
- •5.1.2 Skills and know-how
- •5.1.4 Ability to learn
- •5.2 Communicative language competences
- •5.2.1 Linguistic competences
- •5.2.2 Sociolinguistic competence
- •5.2.3 Pragmatic competences
- •6 Language learning and teaching
- •6.1 What is it that learners have to learn or acquire?
- •6.1.3 Plurilingual competence and pluricultural competence
- •6.1.4 Variation in objectives in relation to the Framework
- •6.2 The processes of language learning
- •6.2.1 Acquisition or learning?
- •6.2.2 How do learners learn?
- •6.3 What can each kind of Framework user do to facilitate language learning?
- •6.4 Some methodological options for modern language learning and teaching
- •6.4.1 General approaches
- •6.5 Errors and mistakes
- •7 Tasks and their role in language teaching
- •7.1 Task description
- •7.2 Task performance
- •7.2.1 Competences
- •7.2.2 Conditions and constraints
- •7.2.3 Strategies
- •7.3.1 Learner competences and learner characteristics
- •7.3.2 Task conditions and constraints
- •8.2 Options for curricular design
- •8.2.2 From the partial to the transversal
- •8.3 Towards curriculum scenarios
- •8.3.1 Curriculum and variation of objectives
- •8.3.2 Some examples of differentiated curriculum scenarios
- •8.4.1 The place of the school curriculum
- •8.4.3 A multidimensional and modular approach
- •9 Assessment
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2.2 The criteria for the attainment of a learning objective
- •9.3 Types of assessment
- •9.3.3 Mastery CR/continuum CR
- •9.3.5 Formative assessment/summative assessment
- •9.3.6 Direct assessment/indirect assessment
- •9.3.7 Performance assessment/knowledge assessment
- •9.3.8 Subjective assessment/objective assessment
- •9.3.9 Rating on a scale/rating on a checklist
- •9.3.10 Impression/guided judgement
- •9.3.11 Holistic/analytic
- •9.3.12 Series assessment/category assessment
- •9.4 Feasible assessment and a metasystem
- •General Bibliography
- •Descriptor formulation
- •Scale development methodologies
- •Intuitive methods:
- •Qualitative methods:
- •Quantitative methods:
- •Appendix B: The illustrative scales of descriptors
- •The Swiss research project
- •Origin and Context
- •Methodology
- •Results
- •Exploitation
- •Follow up
- •References
- •The descriptors in the Framework
- •Document B1 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Communicative activities
- •Document B2 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Communication strategies
- •Document B3 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Working with text
- •Document B4 Illustrative scales in Chapter 5: Communicative language competence
- •Document B5 Coherence in descriptor calibration
- •Appendix C: The DIALANG scales
- •The DIALANG project
- •The DIALANG assessment system
- •Purpose of DIALANG
- •Assessment procedure in DIALANG
- •Purpose of self-assessment in DIALANG
- •The DIALANG self-assessment scales
- •Source
- •Qualitative development
- •Translation
- •Calibration of the self-assessment statements
- •Other DIALANG scales based on the Common European Framework
- •Concise scales
- •Advisory feedback
- •References
- •Document C1 DIALANG self-assessment statements
- •Document C3 Elaborated descriptive scales used in the advisory feedback section of DIALANG
- •The ALTE Framework
- •The development process
- •Textual revision
- •Anchoring to the Council of Europe Framework
- •References
- •Document D1 ALTE skill level summaries
- •Document D2 ALTE social and tourist statements summary
- •Document D3 ALTE social and tourist statements
- •Document D4 ALTE work statements summary
- •Document D5 ALTE WORK statements
- •Document D6 ALTE study statements summary
- •Document D7 ALTE STUDY statements
- •Index
Common Reference Levels
In order to orient learners, teachers and other users within the educational system for some practical purpose, however, a more detailed overview is likely to be necessary. Such an overview can be presented in the form of a grid showing major categories of language use at each of the six levels. The example in Table 2 (on the next two pages) is a draft for a self-assessment orientation tool based on the six levels. It is intended to help learners to profile their main language skills, and decide at which level they might look at a checklist of more detailed descriptors in order to self-assess their level of proficiency.
For other purposes, it may be desirable to focus on a particular spectrum of levels, and a particular set of categories. By restricting the range of levels and categories covered to those relevant to a particular purpose, it will be possible to add more detail: finer levels and categories. Such detail would enable a set of modules to be ‘mapped’ relative to one another – and also to be situated in relation to the Common Framework.
Alternatively, rather than profiling categories of communicative activities, one may wish to assess a performance on the basis of the aspects of communicative language competence one can deduce from it. The chart in Table 3 was designed to assess spoken performances. It focuses on different qualitative aspects of language use.
3.4Illustrative descriptors
The three tables used to introduce the Common Reference Levels (Tables 1, 2 and 3) are summarised from a bank of ‘illustrative descriptors’ developed and validated for the CEF in the research project described in Appendix B. These formulations have been mathematically scaled to these levels by analysing the way in which they have been interpreted in the assessment of large numbers of learners.
For ease of consultation, scales of descriptors are juxtaposed to the relevant categories of the descriptive scheme in Chapters 4 and 5. The descriptors refer to the following three metacategories in the descriptive scheme:
Communicative activities
‘Can Do’ descriptors are provided for reception, interaction and production. There may not be descriptors for all sub-categories for every level, since some activities cannot be undertaken until a certain level of competence has been reached, whilst others may cease to be an objective at higher levels.
Strategies
‘Can Do’ descriptors are provided for some of the strategies employed in performing communicative activities. Strategies are seen as a hinge between the learner’s resources (competences) and what he/she can do with them (communicative activities). The principles of a) planning action, b) balancing resources and compensating for deficiencies during execution and c) monitoring results and undertaking repair as necessary are described in the sections dealing with interaction and production strategies in Chapter 4.
25
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
Table 2. Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid
|
|
A1 |
A2 |
B1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listening |
I can recognise familiar |
I can understand phrases |
I can understand the main |
|
|
|
words and very basic |
and the highest frequency |
points of clear standard |
|
|
|
phrases concerning |
vocabulary related to areas |
speech on familiar matters |
|
|
|
myself, my family and |
of most immediate personal |
regularly encountered in |
|
U |
|
immediate concrete |
relevance (e.g. very basic |
work, school, leisure, etc. I |
|
|
surroundings when |
personal and family |
can understand the main |
||
N |
|
||||
|
people speak slowly |
information, shopping, |
point of many radio or TV |
||
D |
|
||||
|
and clearly. |
local area, employment). |
programmes on current |
||
E |
|
||||
|
|
I can catch the main point in |
affairs or topics of personal |
||
R |
|
|
|||
|
|
short, clear, simple messages |
or professional interest when |
||
S |
|
|
|||
|
|
and announcements. |
the delivery is relatively slow |
||
T |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
and clear. |
||
A |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
N |
Reading |
I can understand |
I can read very short, simple |
I can understand texts that |
|
D |
|||||
|
familiar names, words |
texts. I can find specific, |
consist mainly of high |
||
I |
|
||||
|
and very simple |
predictable information in |
frequency everyday or job- |
||
N |
|
||||
|
sentences, for example |
simple everyday material |
related language. I can |
||
G |
|
||||
|
on notices and posters |
such as advertisements, |
understand the description of |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
or in catalogues. |
prospectuses, menus and |
events, feelings and wishes in |
|
|
|
|
timetables and I can |
personal letters. |
|
|
|
|
understand short simple |
|
|
|
|
|
personal letters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spoken |
I can interact in a simple |
I can communicate in simple |
I can deal with most situations |
|
|
Interaction |
way provided the other |
and routine tasks requiring a |
likely to arise whilst travelling |
|
|
|
person is prepared to |
simple and direct exchange of |
in an area where the language |
|
|
|
repeat or rephrase things |
information on familiar topics |
is spoken. I can enter |
|
|
|
at a slower rate of speech |
and activities. I can handle |
unprepared into conversation |
|
|
|
and help me formulate |
very short social exchanges, |
on topics that are familiar, of |
|
S |
|
what I’m trying to say. I |
even though I can’t usually |
personal interest or pertinent |
|
|
can ask and answer simple |
understand enough to keep |
to everyday life (e.g. family, |
||
P |
|
||||
|
questions in areas of |
the conversation going myself. |
hobbies, work, travel and |
||
E |
|
||||
|
immediate need or on |
|
current events). |
||
A |
|
|
|||
|
very familiar topics. |
|
|
||
K |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
I |
Spoken |
I can use simple phrases |
I can use a series of phrases |
I can connect phrases in a |
|
N |
|||||
Production |
and sentences to describe |
and sentences to describe in |
simple way in order to describe |
||
G |
|||||
|
where I live and people I |
simple terms my family and |
experiences and events, my |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
know. |
other people, living |
dreams, hopes and ambitions. |
|
|
|
|
conditions, my educational |
I can briefly give reasons and |
|
|
|
|
background and my present |
explanations for opinions and |
|
|
|
|
or most recent job. |
plans. I can narrate a story or |
|
|
|
|
|
relate the plot of a book or |
|
|
|
|
|
film and describe my reactions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing |
I can write a short, simple |
I can write short, simple notes |
I can write simple connected |
|
W |
|
postcard, for example |
and messages relating to |
text on topics which are |
|
|
sending holiday greetings. |
matters in areas of immediate |
familiar or of personal interest. |
||
R |
|
||||
|
I can fill in forms with |
need. I can write a very simple |
I can write personal letters |
||
I |
|
||||
|
personal details, for |
personal letter, for example |
describing experiences and |
||
T |
|
||||
|
example entering my |
thanking someone for |
impressions. |
||
I |
|
||||
|
name, nationality and |
something. |
|
||
N |
|
|
|||
|
address on a hotel |
|
|
||
G |
|
|
|
||
|
registration form. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Common Reference Levels |
|
|
|
B2 |
C1 |
C2 |
|
|
|
I can understand extended speech |
I can understand extended speech |
I have no difficulty in understanding |
and lectures and follow even |
even when it is not clearly |
any kind of spoken language, |
complex lines of argument provided |
structured and when relationships |
whether live or broadcast, even when |
the topic is reasonably familiar. I |
are only implied and not signalled |
delivered at fast native speed, |
can understand most TV news and |
explicitly. I can understand |
provided I have some time to get |
current affairs programmes. I can |
television programmes and films |
familiar with the accent. |
understand the majority of films in |
without too much effort. |
|
standard dialect. |
|
|
|
|
|
I can read articles and reports |
I can understand long and |
I can read with ease virtually all |
concerned with contemporary |
complex factual and literary |
forms of the written language, |
problems in which the writers adopt |
texts, appreciating distinctions of |
including abstract, structurally or |
particular attitudes or viewpoints. I |
style. I can understand specialised |
linguistically complex texts such as |
can understand contemporary |
articles and longer technical |
manuals, specialised articles and |
literary prose. |
instructions, even when they do |
literary works. |
|
not relate to my field. |
|
|
|
|
I can interact with a degree of |
I can express myself fluently and |
I can take part effortlessly in any |
fluency and spontaneity that makes |
spontaneously without much |
conversation or discussion and have a |
regular interaction with native |
obvious searching for expressions. |
good familiarity with idiomatic |
speakers quite possible. I can take an |
I can use language flexibly and |
expressions and colloquialisms. I can |
active part in discussion in familiar |
effectively for social and |
express myself fluently and convey |
contexts, accounting for and |
professional purposes. I can |
finer shades of meaning precisely. If I |
sustaining my views. |
formulate ideas and opinions with |
do have a problem I can backtrack |
|
precision and relate my |
and restructure around the difficulty |
|
contribution skilfully to those of |
so smoothly that other people are |
|
other speakers. |
hardly aware of it. |
|
|
|
I can present clear, detailed |
I can present clear, detailed |
I can present a clear, smoothly |
descriptions on a wide range of |
descriptions of complex subjects |
flowing description or argument in a |
subjects related to my field of |
integrating sub-themes, developing |
style appropriate to the context and |
interest. I can explain a viewpoint on |
particular points and rounding off |
with an effective logical structure |
a topical issue giving the advantages |
with an appropriate conclusion. |
which helps the recipient to notice |
and disadvantages of various options. |
|
and remember significant points. |
|
|
|
I can write clear, detailed text on a |
I can express myself in clear, well- |
I can write clear, smoothly flowing |
wide range of subjects related to my |
structured text, expressing points |
text in an appropriate style. I can |
interests. I can write an essay or |
of view at some length. I can write |
write complex letters, reports or |
report, passing on information or |
about complex subjects in a |
articles which present a case with an |
giving reasons in support of or |
letter, an essay or a report, |
effective logical structure which |
against a particular point of view. I |
underlining what I consider to be |
helps the recipient to notice and |
can write letters highlighting the |
the salient issues. I can select |
remember significant points. I can |
personal significance of events and |
style appropriate to the reader |
write summaries and reviews of |
experiences. |
in mind. |
professional or literary works. |
|
|
|
27
Table 3. Common Reference Levels: qualitative aspects of spoken language use
|
RANGE |
ACCURACY |
FLUENCY |
INTERACTION |
COHERENCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2 |
Shows great flexibility |
Maintains consistent |
Can express him/herself |
Can interact with ease and |
Can create coherent and |
|
reformulating ideas in |
grammatical control of |
spontaneously at length with |
skill, picking up and using |
cohesive discourse |
|
differing linguistic forms |
complex language, even |
a natural colloquial flow, |
non-verbal and intona- |
making full and appropri- |
|
to convey finer shades of |
while attention is otherwise |
avoiding or backtracking |
tional cues apparently |
ate use of a variety of |
|
meaning precisely, to give |
engaged (e.g. in forward |
around any difficulty so |
effortlessly. Can interweave |
organisational patterns |
|
emphasis, to differentiate |
planning, in monitoring |
smoothly that the |
his/her contribution into |
and a wide range of |
|
and to eliminate ambiguity. |
others’ reactions). |
interlocutor is hardly |
the joint discourse with |
connectors and other |
|
Also has a good command |
|
aware of it. |
fully natural turntaking, |
cohesive devices. |
|
of idiomatic expressions |
|
|
referencing, allusion |
|
|
and colloquialisms. |
|
|
making, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C1 |
Has a good command of a |
Consistently maintains a |
Can express him/herself |
Can select a suitable phrase |
Can produce clear, |
|
broad range of language |
high degree of grammatical |
fluently and spontaneously, |
from a readily available |
smoothly flowing, well- |
|
allowing him/her to select a |
accuracy; errors are rare, |
almost effortlessly. Only a |
range of discourse |
structured speech, |
|
formulation to express him/ |
difficult to spot and |
conceptually difficult |
functions to preface his |
showing controlled use of |
|
herself clearly in an |
generally corrected when |
subject can hinder a natural, |
remarks in order to get or |
organisational patterns, |
|
appropriate style on a wide |
they do occur. |
smooth flow of language. |
to keep the floor and to |
connectors and cohesive |
|
range of general, academic, |
|
|
relate his/her own |
devices. |
|
professional or leisure |
|
|
contributions skilfully to |
|
|
topics without having to |
|
|
those of other speakers. |
|
|
restrict what he/she wants |
|
|
|
|
|
to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2 |
Has a sufficient range of |
Shows a relatively high |
Can produce stretches of |
Can initiate discourse, take |
Can use a limited number |
|
language to be able to give |
degree of grammatical |
language with a fairly even |
his/her turn when |
of cohesive devices to link |
|
clear descriptions, express |
control. Does not make |
tempo; although he/she can |
appropriate and end |
his/her utterances into |
|
viewpoints on most general |
errors which cause mis- |
be hesitant as he/she |
conversation when he/she |
clear, coherent discourse, |
|
topics, without much |
understanding, and can |
searches for patterns and |
needs to, though he/she |
though there may be |
|
conspicuous searching for |
correct most of his/her |
expressions. There are few |
may not always do this |
some ‘jumpiness’ in a |
|
words, using some complex |
mistakes. |
noticeably long pauses. |
elegantly. Can help the |
long contribution. |
|
sentence forms to do so. |
|
|
discussion along on |
|
|
|
|
|
familiar ground confirming |
|
|
|
|
|
comprehension, inviting |
|
|
|
|
|
others in, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1 |
Has enough language to get |
Uses reasonably accurately a |
Can keep going |
Can initiate, maintain and |
Can link a series of |
|
by, with sufficient |
repertoire of frequently used |
comprehensibly, even though |
close simple face-to-face |
shorter, discrete simple |
|
vocabulary to express him/ |
‘routines’ and patterns |
pausing for grammatical and |
conversation on topics that |
elements into a |
|
herself with some hesitation |
associated with more |
lexical planning and repair is |
are familiar or of personal |
connected, linear |
|
and circumlocutions on |
predictable situations. |
very evident, especially in |
interest. Can repeat back |
sequence of points. |
|
topics such as family, |
|
longer stretches of free |
part of what someone has |
|
|
hobbies and interests, work, |
|
production. |
said to confirm mutual |
|
|
travel, and current events. |
|
|
understanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A2+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A2 |
Uses basic sentence patterns |
Uses some simple structures |
Can make him/herself |
Can answer questions and |
Can link groups of words |
|
with memorised phrases, |
correctly, but still |
understood in very short |
respond to simple |
with simple connectors |
|
groups of a few words and |
systematically makes basic |
utterances, even though |
statements. Can indicate |
like ‘and’, ‘but’ and |
|
formulae in order to |
mistakes. |
pauses, false starts and |
when he/she is following |
‘because’. |
|
communicate limited |
|
reformulation are very |
but is rarely able to |
|
|
information in simple |
|
evident. |
understand enough to keep |
|
|
everyday situations. |
|
|
conversation going of |
|
|
|
|
|
his/her own accord. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A1 |
Has a very basic repertoire |
Shows only limited control |
Can manage very short, |
Can ask and answer |
Can link words or groups |
|
of words and simple phrases |
of a few simple grammatical |
isolated, mainly pre- |
questions about personal |
of words with very basic |
|
related to personal details |
structures and sentence |
packaged utterances, with |
details. Can interact in a |
linear connectors like |
|
and particular concrete |
patterns in a memorised |
much pausing to search for |
simple way but |
‘and’ or ‘then’. |
|
situations. |
repertoire. |
expressions, to articulate less |
communication is totally |
|
|
|
|
familiar words, and to repair |
dependent on repetition, |
|
|
|
|
communication. |
rephrasing and repair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
Communicative language competences
Scaled descriptors are provided for aspects of linguistic competence and pragmatic competence, and for sociolinguistic competence. Certain aspects of competence do not seem to be amenable to definition at all levels; distinctions have been made where they have been shown to be meaningful.
Descriptors need to remain holistic in order to give an overview; detailed lists of microfunctions, grammatical forms and vocabulary are presented in language specifications for particular languages (e.g. Threshold Level 1990). An analysis of the functions, notions, grammar and vocabulary necessary to perform the communicative tasks described on the scales could be part of the process of developing new sets of language specifications. General competences implied by such a module (e.g. Knowledge of the World, Cognitive skills) could be listed in similar fashion.
The descriptors juxtaposed with the text in Chapters 4 and 5:
•Draw, in their formulation, upon the experience of many bodies active in the field of defining levels of proficiency.
•Have been developed in tandem with the development of the model presented in Chapters 4 and 5 through an interaction between (a) the theoretical work of the authoring group, (b) the analysis of existing scales of proficiency and (c) the practical workshops with teachers. Whilst not providing fully comprehensive coverage of the categories presented in Chapters 4 and 5, the set gives an indication of the possible appearance of a set of descriptors which would do so.
•Have been matched to the set of Common Reference Levels: A1 (Breakthrough), A2
(Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Proficiency) and C2 (Mastery).
•Meet the criteria outlined in Appendix A for effective descriptors in that each is brief, is clear and transparent, is positively formulated, describes something definite and has independent, stand-alone integrity – not relying on the formulation of other descriptors for its interpretation.
•Have been found transparent, useful and relevant by groups of non-native and nativespeaker teachers from a variety of educational sectors with very different profiles in terms of linguistic training and teaching experience. Teachers appear to understand the descriptors in the set, which has been refined in workshops with them from an initial pool of some thousands of examples.
•Are relevant to the description of actual learner achievement in lower and upper secondary, vocational and adult education, and could thus represent realistic objectives.
•Have been (with noted exceptions) ‘objectively calibrated’ to a common scale. This means that the position of the vast majority of the descriptors on the scale is the product of the way in which they have been interpreted to assess the achievement of learners, and not just on the basis of the opinion of the authors.
•Provide a bank of criterion statements about the continuum of foreign language proficiency which can be exploited flexibly for the development of criterion-referenced assessment. They can be matched to existing local systems, elaborated by local experience and/or used to develop new sets of objectives.
30